analyze_exceptions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool analyzes and groups exceptions, but it does not disclose defaults, time windows, aggregation behavior beyond grouping, whether it is read-only, or what the output structure looks like. This is thin for an 11-parameter tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and grouping behavior, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite complete parameter schemas, the tool has no annotations and no output schema, and it has 11 parameters including authentication. The description does not address default time windows, the relationship between all/count/requestId, output shape, or when to prefer this over sibling analysis tools. Given the complexity, the description is not complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description's 'grouping by message pattern' adds slight reinforcement to the groupByMessage parameter but does not materially augment the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('exceptions across requests'), and a distinct behavior ('groupping by message pattern'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_slow_queries or detect_n_plus_1, which operate on different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related analytics tools, nor any exclusions. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The parameter descriptions hint at usage, but the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.